Talk:Green
"In politics, green means putting Earth before human?s." -- This is obviously a highly controversial definition of Green. I think we can find a better one. (Please note that I am myself a Green, so I am not attempting to promote any anti-Green agenda here.) -- RJ090237.user.veloxzone.com.br
- I'll look for a better one. This one is not good. I finally succeeded to unmix the big mess between the three different types of écologistes on the french wikipedia. You english are lucky you use two different words in english. My question would be : how do you call an ecologist/green who follow and study a philosophical doctrine inspired of ecology ? (not a political ecologist, and not a scientific ecologist).
Wow, I don't know if we have this word in English. Maybe "Environmental Philosopher"??? Please tell me the names of some of these people, then we can look and see what words are being used to describe them. I think that the most neutral/NPOV definition we could use for Green right now would be the Four Pillars. Page on the Four Pillars on the Full English Wikipedia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pillars -- RJ090237.user.veloxzone.com.br
- I think that's just a "Green (politics)".
- It may be a better definition of a Gaian. However, there are few or no sane people who believe that human desires or wants can actually come first, if Earth has some over-riding need, like shedding heat or circulating its water. So one argument FOR this definition is that Earth ALWAYS comes "before" humans since our survival depends on hers. But probably some more technical idea like "integrity of the biosphere" or ecological health rather than just "Earth" needs to be here. How to state that "simply"?
"However, there are few or no sane people who believe that human desires or wants can actually come first" -- As far as I know, the great majority of people in the USA do believe this, at least in their ordinary lives. This does not necessarily contradict "no sane people." -- RJWiki
- I agree on both counts. My points stands. ;-) The 2.7 million people who voted Green in 2000 might be "sane". But that's "few".
- I agree, the Four Pillars are accepted by all Greens. But the http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Principles of the Global Greens Charter are accepted by most Greens. Perhaps just say this?
I would argue that we must keep reference to the 4P, as these have been agreed to by all Greens since the creation of the first Green Party in Germany -- this is the "most basic definition". But I have no problem with mentioning other principals. As far as I know, Greens in the USA don't talk about the Six_Principles much. -- RJWiki
- Not yet, not, they use the Ten Key Values they outlined in 1984. So do Canadian Greens. But everyone including the North Americans have agreed to the Six Principles.
Michel Serres. But then we do not talk about the same greens. French Greens talk about the 6, not the 4. And others, we just forget then ?
- The others are exclusive to North America, where Greens have never held power. Cutting back to 6 might help them get there. ;-)
"Michel Serres." -- I do not know this person. On the Internet, he seems to be usually called simply "a philosopher". -- RJWiki
- Hans Jonas ? Theodore Monod ?
"And others, we just forget then ?" -- I say strongly No to this. I am a "lumper" not a "splitter" (I like to include things, not exclude them). But the French Greens use the 4, plus 2 more, right? While others use only the 4. So again, it seems to me that to use the Four Pillars (with additional notes) would be the most useful basic definition. -- RJWiki
- This is already done exactly right on the Full English Wikipedia, just look there. There are separate articles on Four Pillars, Six Principles, Ten Key Values (none of which are used only by the Greens), and they are probably less controversial than the Standard Model. It's only a matter of wording and factoring. They do not contradict each other.
- The most neutral view is that of the Global Greens which adheres to Six Principles. The most correct history is to base it on Four Pillars. It's not primarily North Americans reading the Simple English Wikipedia, so mention the Ten Key Values and no more. Everywhere else Green is 6 now.
(Above from 142.177.81.xxx ) -- Though I haven't gone back and reviewed the En Wiki articles, I agree with 142's take on this here -- RJWiki
Okay. What is the other name you give to those who follow some political ecology principles, but are not Greens ? We call them écologistes politiques, do you use an equivalent ?
- It's exactly what is said on the EN:, and it seems to hold up. No fanatic Greens have showed up to hack those articles apart to change it. Also the stubs just now put in, aren't really stubs, just links to the right EN article. Someone else can adapt those. I've said enough on this issue. ;-) Because these exact phrases appear all over the place, we probably need to link them to articles with the same longish Full English titles, but then write little articles on Social Justice or Participatory Democracy in Simple English just to introduce the core idea. We probably can't explain any of the 6 principles fully here, but, there's no reason not to link to the related simpler specific concepts or practices they imply. Like, Ecological Wisdom implies you conserve habitat, we can say that much.
Start a discussion about Green
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve Green.
